Definition of Honour:

Ecology of Peace Radical Honoursty culture’s definition of honour is almost identical to its definition for ‘love’ – as described at Ecology of Peace Radical Honoursty Information Quality Operations; namely that your communication policy values are based upon the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; based upon the evidence, the whole evidence and nothing but the evidence – applied first to yourself; in your communication policy dialogue with your ego; and subsequently to others; whether they are perceived by your ego as enemies or friends.

Radical Honoursty / Yshmael Guerrylla Law Definitions:

Legal Tyranny of Vague Definitions: A Legal Tyranny occurs in family, community, nation, planet where the verbal and/or written social contract jurisprudence has vague and abstract legal definitions: particularly as relating to denying the members of the community clear and simple information on (a) the root causes of resource conflicts; (b) the communication and negotiations skills and tools to non-violently, if that is their preference, resolve resource conflict disputes that address the root causes of the resource conflict, and enable a win-win solution to the resource conflict dispute.

Love: Love is to (a) tell another person your objective and/or subjective truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, no matter how ‘offensive’ to the listener, and (b) to do so publicly, to their face; as opposed to secretly or behind their back, and (c) to remain in the conversation with them, based upon EoP Buck stops here Radical Honoursty responsible freedumb [responsible-freedom.tygae.org.za] relating communication practices.

Hate: Hate is to (a) withhold your honest objective and/or subjective truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, no matter how offensive, from the listener; and (b) to impart your fake passive aggressive two faced hypocrit ‘being nice’ ‘being politically correct’ etc opinions about them to their face, particularly while expressing your subjective truth to others about them, behind their back, and (c) to bull**it yourself, that your passive aggressive bullshit the public manipulation of your ‘public image’ is not ‘hate’ (including self hate); but ‘manners’ or ‘being nice’ or ‘being polite’ or ‘being professional’, etc; based upon Masonic plausible deniable War is Peace freedumb slavery relating communication practices.

Racism: Any fact or verbal or written statement about racial differences – no matter how offensive or factually incorrect — cannot be ‘racist’. Only a subjective belief about racial differences can be racist, if (a) it unequivocally subjectively known, by the holder of the belief, to be both factually and experientially false, yet (b) stated as factual or experiential truth, and (c) when confronted with possible alternative evidence and theories, the nature of the subjectivity of the belief is fundamentalist, as opposed to simply that of a working hypothesis truthseeking conclusion. [Definition of Dr. Gedaliah Braun, in What is Racism? Or, how Philosophy can be ‘Practical’: in his book: Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred and Self-Deceit; as modified and clarified in CAP v USA and Florida v Michael Dunn].
» IG: 15-09-27_racismdefinition.

Simple Justice EoP Scientific and Cultural Law:

Ecology of Peace Scientific and Cultural Law is an effort to provide all families, communities, nations with a functional win-win resource conflict solving international law social contract template, that (a) is scientifically based upon the authority – not of men, women, race or religion – but scientific ecological carrying capacity limits, is so simple – breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits, and cheaters will be eliminated from commons genepool – it can be explained to a child or an adult, that western industrial educational system civilization considers ‘illiterate’; (b) allows for responsible freedom informed consent cultural law self rule: this allows groups of individuals who share a preference for a particular, racial, religious or social practice, and/or a preference for relating to others who share their preferential racial, cultural or religious practices; to live in separate tribal communities from others who don’t share their cultural practices; practicing self rule regulation of their cultural practices. The EoP scientific and cultural law template allows for diverse groups with many different cultural practices to live in neighbouring villages, nations; without inter-cultural or resource conflict, to the extent that they strictly hold each other, and the individuals within their tribes, accountable to abiding by scientific and cultural law social contract laws.

If they are committed to honourable discourse; or you are still giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are committed to honourable truthseeking discussion:

Clarify your preferences; to enable people being communicated to, to clearly know what you want; and whether they are willing to engage you in entering into an agreement; to help you get what you want; and reciprocally whether you can help them to get what they may want.

Always respond to verbal and written correspondence: from honourable communicators, with a sincere honest response. If you don’t have time to respond; inform them by when they can expect a response.

You sincerely and actively listen to the evidence from any individual, irrespective of their political ideology (right wing to left wing), religion, race or culture. Active listening means you verify that your interpretation of their statements is accurate; before concluding that you have ‘heard their argument’.

You focus on simplifying the issue discussed, using as much as possible descriptive words; as opposed to abstract concepts. If or where you do use abstract concepts; you are willing to define your meaning of that abstract concept within that circumstance.

You evaluate their argument based upon the evidence they present, not their race, religion or political ideology; etc.

If you are not convinced by the quality of their evidence on any particular issue; you are willing to agree to disagree on that particular issue, and if they are wiling to engage in cooperative truthseeking to get better evidence so that you are both able to get more quality evidence; so that a stronger beyond reasonable doubt conclusion can be drawn on the particular issue in dispute.

You remain in the conversation until you find agreement; and support each other on other issues that you do agree upon; based upon more conclusive buck stops here evidence.

If conflict sincerely arises in the discussion about the issue, you are committed to remaining in the conversation and finding a way to resolve the conflict, by allowing yourselves to get over your anger; as opposed to requiring yourself or others to suppress their anger for political correct ‘lets pretend we are getting along’ reasons.

If or where sincere conflict arises: if sincere about resolving the disagreement; engage each other to find a fair ‘buck stops here’ arbitrator; whose arbitration values are based upon the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, based upon the evidence, the whole evidence and nothing but the evidence. Once the emotional steam has been released through the conflict resolution process; both parties will find themselves in a more calm neutral space where the truthseeking conversation can proceed.

If at any point during discussion; or arbitration proceedings; their evidence proves any of your evidence for any of your ideological, racial or religious working hypothesis theories or beliefs to be inaccurate; you love reason and logic more than your ego-identity and hence you are willing to publicly change your mind, on that particular subject and amend your ideological working hypothesis or belief with the new evidence provided; and if necessary to apologize.

EoP culture perspective on Dishonourable Discourse:

If or when you interpret them as dishonourable – not sincerely interested in truthseeking based upon evidence:

Inform them with a sincere honest interpretation of the dishonourable elements of their communication.

If they continue to engage in fuck honour and fuck truthseeking discourse; notify them that you are terminating correspondence with them since their correspondence is not based upon an interest in truthseeking based upon evidence. You can resume discussion of the issues in dispute; if or when they change their mind towards being interested in truthseeking based upon buck stops here evidence.

If you subjectively and objectively sincerely think their continued fuck honour and fuck truthseeking behaviour amounts to conscious and deliberate fraud and deception of others; notify the police and/or district attorney in the jurisdiction where the fraud occurred or is occurring; based upon honourable discourse policy points above; to ascertain whether the District Attorney sincerely cares about prosecuting fraud; including the persons who were defrauded; so that if any of them were sincere truthseekers who were being defrauded; they can file a fraud complaint with the police.

If any of the individuals were sincere truthseekers who were defrauded, file a fraud complaint with the police; provide any parties who so request with a written affidavit statement of your subjective and objective truth evidence; related to the accused individuals fraud; for submission into the court record.

If you cannot find any police and/or district attorney’s or judges in your nation who care about the prosecution of fraud; you can approach the media and/or politicians. If you cannot find any media and/or politicians approach military officials: soldiers know that in a war situation: buck stops here evidence truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth – aka ‘accurate reality intelligence’ is what keeps them alive. If the entire judicial and political system they are defending with their lives is based upon inaccurate intelligence; then they are fighting and dying for lies. Some soldiers don’t care about honour; some – like Gunny Dye do care whether they are fighting for buck stops here truth and honour and justice for all. A higher ranking soldiers ‘leadership’ credibility with their lower rank soldiers depends on them being honest with their soldiers about what they are dying for. A state with fuck all policemen, prosecutors, judges, journalists, editors, politicians who give a fuck about honour, and prosecuting fraud; has fuck all ‘honesty’ or ‘honour’ credibility; with an individual who sincerely gives a fuck about honour and practices honourable communication practices.

Honour Truth based upon Evidence Credibility:

“There is a book called Toward an American Revolution: Exposing the Constitution & Other Illusions, which I tell people would be the best ten dollars spent on a book. It is by Jerry Fresia, a Ph.D at UMass at Amherst. It is a story of the constitution and where it came from, about the men who were at Philadelphia, their backgrounds, and the discussion that he was able to pick up through research, and how the Constitution was crammed down the throats of the States. The point was that Rhode Island was the only state that had a referendum and of those 5% of the people who could vote, the constitution lost 13 to 1. The point was this is the document that states the rules of the game, that keeps the points of debate as narrow as possible. … We have so many crisis in America… and the rules of the game that produce these crisis, in my opinion is the Constitution.” – Philip Agee; Our Hidden History: Philip Agee: The Warfare State.
» IG: 17-06-18_philipageejerryfresia-wipconstitutionillusions.

A state with fuck all interest in ‘honour credibility’ – i.e. no interest in basing its laws upon the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, based upon the evidence, the whole evidence, and nothing but the evidence; is like an engineer building a bridge for 50 million tonne train crossing; who builds his bridge with matchsticks instead of cement and steel; because his ‘fuck honour engineering gods told him that he can build bridges based upon ‘fuck gravity legal principles’; with matchsticks; and he does not need millions of tones of concrete and steel to hold that 50 million tonne train in the air; to enable it to cross from one cliff to another. When that 50 million tonne train begins to cross that matchstick bridge; both the train and matchstick bridge are going to crash down the cliff.

Engineers who build bridges based upon honour factual reality; that include public recognition that the bridges they build must make buck stops here recognition of gravity laws; build bridges for a 50 million tonne train; which can probably hold up a 70 or 80 million tonne train. The train driver has very high trust; that he can drive his train over a bridge built by an engineer who built bridges based upon honour factual reality that include public recognition that the bridges they build must make buck stops here recognition of gravity laws.

An engineer that ignores scientific — gravity, steel strength etc — rules; when building his bridge; because his ‘political correct’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ or ‘muslim’ or ‘christian’ or ‘buddhist’ gods don’t like, or are offended by scientific — gravity, steel strength rules — is going to be the builder of a collapsing bridge.

Lawyers, legislators, prosecutors and judges who give a fuck about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, based upon the evidence, the whole evidence, and nothing but the evidence; build high trust steel bridge societies; where a citizen knows they can go to the court; to find an impartial arbitrator on any issue in dispute; that will help both parties to find the truth, and nothing but the truth; based upon the evidence.

Citizens, Lawyers, legislators, prosecutors and judges who do not give a fuck about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, based upon the evidence, the whole evidence, and nothing but the evidence; build low or no trust societies. In a low or no trust society; every court – whether official juridical court; or the media court of public opinion – is effectively a legal ‘fuck ecological carrying capacity gravity laws’ ‘matchstick bridge’.

In a nation of low or no trust; where every court is effectively a legal matchstick bridge; you are better off finding an alternative dispute resolution buck stops here steel bridge’ arbitrator – no different to a buck stops here steel bridge policeman; such as for example Dagestan policeman Magomed Nurbaganov [Crime Russia, Russia Today, Kremlin, Kremlin]; US Marine California Corrections Officer’s Richard Caruso and Steve Rigg [Prison Legal News,Esquire]; President Thomas Sankara [AfrikaNewsItaly], Mustafa Kemal Attaturk [Mark Campbell], Serpico [Worley Clarence] — if you are sincerely interested in resolving your dispute based upon the truth and the evidence.

Citizens and/or their military, legal, religious and/or political leaders who don’t give a fuck about ‘the truth, the whole truth; and nothing but the truth; based upon the evidence, the whole evidence; and nothing but the evidence’ with their own ego’s; who have made fuck all sincere efforts to engage their ego’s; and/or their citizens and/or their leaders based upon Buck Stops here communication principles; to support buck stops here citizens, military, legal, religious and/or political leaders to build buck stops here steel bridge families, communities, nations and planetary society; should not be surprised when they help to (a) co-create a low trust or no trust military, racial, religious, political, ideological or national socio-cultural society; that has fuck all concern about the future survival of their particular race, religion, ideology; or class; and (b) have sweet fuck all credibility before a root cause problem solving Buck Stops Here truthseeking Arbitrator.

Buck Stops Here: USMC Sgt Jon Michael Dye story:

The following story is a good description of what I refer to as ‘buck stops here’ terms. It was told to me by my friend and at the time lover Gunny Dye; 17 year former US Marine Gunnery Sgt. Jon Michael Dye. He may, or my memory may have embellished it a bit, but I don’t imagine too much; cause he was not afraid to say what he thought, when he thought it.

He was in the Congo when he got a message that his ex-wife had been severely beaten up by her new boyfriend: broken ribs, that kind of thing. He got time off, and flew back to California. He found the boyfriend, and beat him to a pulp; broke ribs, bones, put the man into intensive care, and very close to death. The man filed assault charges. Gunny went to court. This is what he told the Judge.

‘Your honour. I plead not guilty; although I do admit to having beat the shit out of that piece of scum, and put him in hospital. He beat up my wife, and I taught him a lesson about what happens to any man who – without any reasonable justification – assaults a woman; in this case, my former wife; the mother of my children. To save the plaintiff, prosecutor and courts time: let me make it very clear. If he ever lays his hands on my former wife, again, the next time I will not be beating him up, but will put a bullet through his brain. If the plaintiff, prosecutor or court has any objections to that statement of intent, which is not a threat, but a Semper Fidelis promise; then you better find me guilty right now of first degree murder; and to save the State of California’s time; schedule the execution date; and a few of my Marine Corp buddies can line me and the piece of scum plaintiff up against a wall and riddle us with bullets; and you won’t have to bother the courts time with either of us ever again.

The Judge asked the plaintiff and prosecutor if they had heard Gunny’s statement, and whether they fully understood Gunny’s intentions, and whether they had any objections to Gunny’s accused’s promise of death consequences to anyone beating up his wife. Neither the plaintiff nor the prosecutor informed the judge of any objections.

Gunny was found not guilty of assaulting the plaintiff.

Now that is a judge who is capable of managing a ‘buck stops here’ courtroom, who when confronted with a ‘don’t fuck with me or my wife buck stops here’ accused in his courtroom; was capable of demanding that the prosecutor and plaintiff understand that they were dealing with a ‘don’t fuck with me or my wife buck stops here’ accused; and not some ‘plausible deniable backstabbing two faced hypocrite mindfuck’ accused; and capable of saving the court, police and prosecutors by engaging in a problem solving fully informed consent 100%-certainty-agreement between the accused and plaintiff.